Questions about 2C bal/nat in 2/1 GF

[Jinksy]

Judging by a couple of recent threads, it sounds as though the sequence 1M 2C / as clubs or balanced, rather than a simple natural bid is the norm in the US. I had some questions, to people who've played it. Assuming I want to play follow-ups as natural/intuitively as possible, am I right in the following interpretations:

 

1) 1M 2♣ / 3♣

Opener has 4+ clubs

 

2) 1M 2♣ / (any) 3♣

Responder has 6+ clubs

 

3) 1M 2♣ / 2M 2N / 3♣

Opener has 3 clubs, or perhaps Hx

 

4) 1M 2♣ / 3♣ 3DH

Responder had 4+ clubs, and is either probing for 3N or investigating slam

 

5) 1M 2♣ / 2♣ 3N

Responder had either 2443 or a (3433) shape that didn't want to play in spades

 

6) 'Balanced' here doesn't include hands with 5♦s

 

Either way, that leaves me with a couple more questions:

 

7) How do you deal with the sequence 1M 2♣ / 3♣, when responder is 2443 or similar, and too strong to want to sign off in 3N?

 

8) What does opener do with 5(404) after 1M 2♣? Should he raise clubs, or bid the cheaper suit at the two level? If the latter, how does he then persuade responder he had 4♣ later?

 

9) What do the sequences 1M 2♣ / 3(new suit) mean? Are they splinters, showing 5 clubs? Splinters with 4 clubs? Or something completely different?

[mgoetze]

I play a 3-way 2♣: GF wth clubs, balanced GF, or invitational with 3-card support for opener's major (this allows me to play a direct raise to 3M as preemptive while still having a non-forcing 1NT response). It's very easy to play this without much memory strain: opener relays with 2♦ unless he has extra shape and is accepting any invite, then 2M is the invite, 2NT is the balanced GF, and anything else is clubs. Example: 1♠-2♣; 2♦-2♥ shows a GF with 5 clubs and 4 hearts.

 

(I have recently made the responses to the relay more complicated in my personal system to account better for balanced GF with and without 3-card support, but I believe this is very playable even with the simple responses stated above.)

[antonylee]

Including the 3crd invite would be nice but it is not GCC legal :-(

 

re OP's specific points:

1-5 are fine.

6. I actually play that 1M-2D show at least HHxxx, and 1S-2H at least HTxxx if holding 3crd support (I remember finding a nice 6S after 1S-2C-3H!(spl) when partner judged well to bid 2C on HHx-xxxxx-HHx-Hx (approx). This also answers 9: opener's jumps to the 3-level are (compulsory) splinters with 4-crd support, and then 8 (5(40)4 hands): you either show 4crd support by splintering (treating the hand as 5M(31)4) or show your other 4crd suit first and hope to rebid 3C over partner's hoped-for 2M or 2N (treating the hand as 5M(41)3).

So 1M-2C-3C shows specifically 5224 and I just bid quantitatively there (4N if too strong for 3N), or fake-agree clubs and correct to NT at slam level.

[awm]

1-6 seem right to me.

 

7. 4NT is quantitative (there are lots of less space-consuming ways to set clubs). Keep in mind the hand looks like a misfit.

8. Bid the suit at the two-level, then 3♣, then bid clubs again if appropriate (note that if partner bids 3NT over 3♣, he will be strong in your known shortness, so you can pass if minimum).

9. I'd think five-card support -- the 3♣ raise is very underutilized if it shows 4-card support and denies shortness.

 

The "3-way" method is more complicated than its proponents make it out to be. A few years back I played a hand against DeFalco and Ollina (a very strong and experienced partnership) where they had a disaster due to this. The auction was 1♠-2♣-3♣-3♠, and opener could not tell whether partner had a double fit (very slammish hand opposite the 3♣ call which already promised extras) or a simple limit raise (worth game now, but less likely to have higher aspirations). Of course you can decided that responder is supposed to bid 4♠ with one or the other, but this consumes a lot of space on a potentially strong sequence.

[jillybean]

delete

[jillybean]

Sorry to hijack the thread.

 

(very slammish hand opposite the 3♣ call which already promised extras)

 

I understand why 3red shows extras but why should the raising clubs promise extras? With a 2 suited black hand aren't you better to raise clubs than rebid a potentially weak 5 card spade suit?

 

I would be interested to see the problem hand, I am thinking that over 3♠ opener could use S3N to probe further.

[awm]

Sorry to hijack the thread.

 

I understand why 3red shows extras but why should the raising clubs promise extras? With a 2 suited black hand aren't you better to raise clubs than rebid a potentially weak 5 card spade suit?

 

I would be interested to see the problem hand, I am thinking that over 3♠ opener could use S3N to probe further.

 

If you play the style mgoetze suggested, where 2♣ is any of a GF with clubs, a GF with balanced, or a 3-card limit raise... then bidding 3♣ on a minimum gets you to the three-level opposite the limit raise (not great) and also removes your space to show a GF spade raise (since presumably 3♠ would show the LR and be NF). Thus 3♣ must show extras. This is not necessarily the case if the 2♣ bid was always establishing a GF.

 

The problem hand was quite some time ago and I don't remember the cards that well... just that they had that auction and Gabriela had the LR and Dano thought they had a double-fit and more values and they got too high. Surely one could have some agreement about this where you would not have "accidents" (although you would likely lose on some hand types) but the fact that a very strong and established partnership did have such an accident suggests to me that you may want to discuss and think some more sequences before stating:

 

It's very easy to play this without much memory strain

[Cthulhu D]

If you play the style mgoetze suggested, where 2♣ is any of a GF with clubs, a GF with balanced, or a 3-card limit raise... then bidding 3♣ on a minimum gets you to the three-level opposite the limit raise (not great) and also removes your space to show a GF spade raise (since presumably 3♠ would show the LR and be NF). Thus 3♣ must show extras. This is not necessarily the case if the 2♣ bid was always establishing a GF.

 

The problem hand was quite some time ago and I don't remember the cards that well... just that they had that auction and Gabriela had the LR and Dano thought they had a double-fit and more values and they got too high. Surely one could have some agreement about this where you would not have "accidents" (although you would likely lose on some hand types) but the fact that a very strong and established partnership did have such an accident suggests to me that you may want to discuss and think some more sequences before stating:

 

That's because he's playing any other rebid than 2D shows significant extras and a clear direction for the hand (thus extra shape and extra HCP). It's easy-ish if you have that agreement (other than 1S-2C-3C-3S, which is awkward).

[Jinksy]

I would have thought after that auction (1S 2C / 3C), you could mostly solve the problem by having responder cue with strong hands, double-fit or no. You lose the ability to easily switch to ♠s, but that shouldn't matter too much at IMPs?

[mgoetze]

If you play the style mgoetze suggested, where 2♣ is any of a GF with clubs, a GF with balanced, or a 3-card limit raise... then bidding 3♣ on a minimum gets you to the three-level opposite the limit raise (not great) and also removes your space to show a GF spade raise (since presumably 3♠ would show the LR and be NF).

No, in the style I advocate, 4♠ would show the LR, since 3♣ already accepted it (and showed 5-5).

[fromageGB]

I would have thought that if 2♣ can be anything other than purely natural, you need to have 2♦ as a relay to find out what sort of hand responder has. If there are any agreed exceptions, then they need to be GF and very descriptive. Short of such agreement, opener with clubs can always bid them later if he wants to.

 

My follow-ups are very simple :

1M 2♣ 2♦ :

2M = 3 card support invitational

2 other Major = 4 card suit

2NT = balanced without a major (if xx{5x} will be a bad 5 card minor)

3♣ = natural GF

3M = GF 3 card support

 

The strength of my responder 2NT and other major is 16+, but you could play 13+ if 1NT is not forcing.

 

Edit: your 3-suited opener hand would bid 2♦ then if responder did not bid 2♥ but 2NT, rebid 3♣.